Ms.Fortune, I didn't like that link. I did not like the way they talked about us "antivaccinationists". Yep, I guess I am "anti-science"!

You know, just because researchers have not yet produced a study showing the link between vaccines and autism, does not mean there is no link to be found. (Researchers funded by.....?) Can we get off the whole mercury bandwagon for a minute, and take a look into aluminum? Aluminum and fluoride reactions, maybe? Can we do study after study? Can we never take the possibility of vaccine damage off the table? I mean, really, why are they so quick to slam the book shut on vaccines? Case closed, move along, nothing more to see on the vaccine issue.

So, the MMS link on your Science Based Medicine website was not very convincing. More FDA mumbo jumbo lol.

"This is the sickest species the world has ever known."
Dr.John Bergman, speaking about the human species.

So for the record, I am an engineer and a scientist, hence I always ask where the money is coming from. Follow the money. Facts are relative when not all sides are presented. Many pharm companies are master manipulators of their data.

I don't understand what big Pharma companies possibly have to hide over this. Stable chlorite precursors are sold EVERY SINGLE DAY in huge huge quantities by chemical companies around the world. This is not a secret product. This is product that produces millions and millions in sales already. If it cured malaria they could sell billions of dollars worth of it. If you're following the MMS money, you would see that it doesn't go anywhere except to Jim Humble.

Given the countries that MMS is being used in as a treatment for malaria, HIV, etc, I am highly suspicious of any claim that states unequivocally no one has been harmed by taking MMS. Countries like Haiti and those in sub-Saharan Africa have little to no capability for anything but the most rudimentary of epidemological data collection. If mortality data (not even counting adverse treatment reactions which I'm sure are not monitored at all) are collected it is extremely basic and would likely be attributed to the underlying cause (i.e. malaria) than to the outcomes of whatever treatment (MMS) might have been in use.

Just because there has only been one case report of a death, which I guess was found un-related in a Western court of law, does not convince me in the slightest that other serious adverse events/deaths have not also occured in such countries where things are not monitored.

I actually think it's highly unethical to go into countries with such rudimentary health systems and even more rudimentary health data systems and offer this treatment. Vomitting might not kill here in the Western world but you can be sure it does in sub-Saharan Africa.

Given the countries that MMS is being used in as a treatment for malaria, HIV, etc, I am highly suspicious of any claim that states unequivocally no one has been harmed by taking MMS. Countries like Haiti and those in sub-Saharan Africa have little to no capability for anything but the most rudimentary of epidemological data collection. If mortality data (not even counting adverse treatment reactions which I'm sure are not monitored at all) are collected it is extremely basic and would likely be attributed to the underlying cause (i.e. malaria) than to the outcomes of whatever treatment (MMS) might have been in use.

Just because there has only been one case report of a death, which I guess was found un-related in a Western court of law, does not convince me in the slightest that other serious adverse events/deaths have not also occured in such countries where things are not monitored.

I actually think it's highly unethical to go into countries with such rudimentary health systems and even more rudimentary health data systems and offer this treatment. Vomitting might not kill here in the Western world but you can be sure it does in sub-Saharan Africa.

I think the bolded is an extremely valid point. Those who died, died of malaria. Those who got better, got better because of MMS. Even outside of the the developing world, people with serious illnesses (HIV, cancer, e.g.) who died while taking MMS, their deaths would very likely be attributed to their conditions, not their treatments. I guess you could say the same thing about almost any treatment though.

I work around and with these chemicals, so I may be able to answer some of the questions that have been raised. I am not a medical professional, so any comments on its ability to disinfect the body should be taken with the understanding that I have no medical training.

I am going to bounce around a little, but let's start with WF-10.

WF-10 is not sodium chlorite. WF-10 showed some wonderful results in Phase I and Phase II trials, but the rumor from those in the sodium chlorite and chlorine dioxide industry is that the Phase III trials did not go well. I have yet to find confirmation of this, but it has been a few years since the Phase III trials were announced and one can speculate that no news about the results is not encouraging.

The question keeps coming up asking why if MMS is so toxic are there no observable adverse effects. The answer is simple. Jim Humble, and all of the clinics he works with, don't bother to check for signs of oxidative stress.

With oxidative stress, the damage occurs over a long time period. If you have suppressed bone marrow function, you don't immediately drop dead after drinking a dose of MMS. But, eventually it catches up with you.

Do any of you remember smoking? The first few experiences resulted in a rather severe "Herxheimer" effect, didn't it. After a while, that effect subsided and there was no apparent signs of damage. Doctors even went on record promoting smoking.

Fast forward a few years and now people are concerned not only with smoking, but also the effects of second hand smoke. What happened? Someone finally connected the dots.

This example is not intended to compare MMS with smoking, but simply to point out that a lack of visual evidence may not tell the whole story. It may take time before the real damage manifests itself.

There is a theory on aging that suggests that free radical damage is the root cause of aging. Since free radicals cause oxidative stress on the body, we may be able to see if MMS causes oxidative stress.

Jim Humble has been taking MMS for many years. Look up a video of him from 5 years ago, and compare it to a more recent one.

When I did this, I noticed that his skin is much more wrinkled, and his metal cognitive ability seems to be a little lower now. Oxidation stress on the skin causes wrinkles, and oxidation stress to the brain causes all sorts of problems.

Does this prove anything? No. Keep in mind that Jim Humble is 79 years old, and this may simply be the results of his normal aging. Still, I know several people of advanced years that are much sharper in appearance and cognitive ability than Jim Humble. It is an interesting comparison never the less.

Keeping in mind my lack of medical qualifications, I also find it very interesting that Jim Humble recently sent out a newsletter stating that he had evidence that he was on a FBI kill list. He has even gone to not wearing his "signature" hat because he feels that it will help "them" target him. I can say that my friends of advanced years are in now way concerned about the FBI and some of them are very radical in their thinking.

The disinfection by product of chlorine dioxide of concern is chlorite. In water disinfection and food processing rinsing the chlorine dioxide goes through a degradation process. Chlorine dioxide quickly gives up 1 electron and forms chlorite. The ORP of this reaction in water is 0.95 volts. However, that is only 1 electron loss, and there are 4 more to go. Over time the chlorite is reduced to chlorate and then ultimately to chloride.

In animals it was discovered that this process is a little different. About 70% of chlorine dioxide forms chlorite. Chlorite concentrates in all of the major organs of the body, including the brain, and is believed to cross through the placenta. The half life of chlorite is around 40 hours.

Jim Humble is correct in that chlorine dioxide does eventually break down to chloride, but he left out the part about the free radical chlorite floating around in the organs of the body with a half life of 40 hours.

Keep in mind that the chlorite testing was done on rats, so there is probably some adjustment necessary when looking at humans. Unfortunately, there are no studies done looking at chlorite half life in humans.

This is probably enough on these questions. This is turning into a book, so I will continue the discussion about the other questions in another post.

Oxidizers work by having a concentration of them in contact with what you are trying to kill for a period of time long enough for a kill.

Chlorine dioxide, chlorite, chlorate, and chlorous acid are all oxidizers.

Let's back up a moment and understand that sodium chlorite does not occur naturally. It is a man made chemical. Chlorine dioxide, chlorite, chlorate, and chlorous acid are all foreign to the body. These are man made chemicals.

The idea of using the electrolysis of salt to produce sodium chlorite probably won't work, but I have not tried that. Sodium chlorite is made from chlorine dioxide.

The dry salt ends up being 80% pure. Various concentrations of sodium chlorite solutions are made by dissolving the powder in water.

MMS is 28%, by weight, but since it is only 80% pure you end up with 22.4% sodium chlorite.

The idea behind sodium chlorite is that it is a stable form of chlorine dioxide. Chlorine dioxide is extremely unstable, and explosive at higher concentrations (above 10% in air), so sodium chlorite is used to transport the chemical to where it is used.

When dealing with sodium chlorite and chlorine dioxide we are using small amounts and often refer to concentrations in parts per million.

28% MMS has 22.4% sodium chlorite, and that works out to 224000 PPM. This is an industrial strength chemical. It is supposed to be shipped with hazardous labels indicating that it is an oxidizer, and should also be shipped with a Material Safety Data Sheet to notify the recipient of how to safely handle this industrial strength chemical.

Jim Humble doesn't agree with the national and international shipping regulations and prefers to simply ship MMS in the mail.

You can run down to a feed store and pick up a gallon of Oxine and ship it without problems. The difference is that Oxine is a 2% sodium chlorite solution. For those keeping track, that's 20000 PPM. There are other formulations that have 5% sodium chlorite and that is the limit for not needing hazard labeling. 5% gives you 50000 PPM.

One way to think about this is to look at hydrogen peroxide. You can't run to the store and pick up a bottle of 35% hydrogen peroxide. The reason is that it is not safe to handle. However, you can pick up bottles of 3% hydrogen peroxide. You still have to take care when handling the 3% concentration, but it is much safer to handle.

Let's look at concentrations used.

Water disinfectant typically uses 1 - 2 PPM. Waste water treatment uses up to 5 PPM. Wilderness water treatment and emergency water treatment uses 4 PPM. Legionnaires disease is controlled using a 0.5 PPM concentration. Anthrax was removed from the senate office buildings and the effected post office using a concentration of 750 PPM. This same concentration was used to kill off mold in buildings after water damage during hurricane Katrina.

The list goes on and on, but as you can see different situations call for different concentrations.

These concentrations are derived from testing. Extensive testing is done to determine the concentration and contact time needed to kill off pathogens.

Jim Humble is quick to point out that human studies were done using chlorine dioxide and they found that there were no adverse effects.

This is the Lubbers study. In that study people consumed 1 liter of water a day for 12 weeks with chlorine dioxide in it at a concentration of 5 PPM. There was another part of the study were people took a single dose that increased each day. The highest dose was 24 PPM.

In contrast, a 3 drop dose of MMS has a concentration of about 330 PPM.

The original MMS protocol had people trying to work up to 15 drops. There was a lot more nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea then. A 15 drop dose of MMS has a concentration of close to 1650 PPM.

The argument seems to be that since 5 PPM over 12 weeks is safe, and since a one time dose fo 24 PPM is also safe, then weeks of 330 PPM must also be safe... And in the case of malaria, 1650 PPM must also be safe.

As you can see, there are big holes in the safety argument. Yes, a study was done looking at the effects of chlorine dioxide in humans, but the levels used were much lower than what is called for in the MMS protocols.

Sodium chlorite is a stable form of chlorine dioxide. In order to release the chlorine dioxide you need to lower the PH of sodium chlorite. Sodium chlorite has a PH that is alkaline, and it varies with concentration.

This is where things get very interesting...

In order to get to the chlorine dioxide, you add an acid to sodium chlorite. This forms chlorous acid (HClO2) and some free chlorine dioxide. You then bubble air through the chlorous acid to collect the chlorine dioxide, and then deposit it into another container of distilled water. You end up with chlorine dioxide in water.

Chlorine dioxide is a gas, and remains a gas in water. Since it is a gas, it does not alter the PH of the water.

Chlorous acid is an acid that is extremely PH sensitive.

When you mix up a dose of MMS according to the MMS protocol, you end up drinking chlorous acid that has a PH of about 3.

There are no studies looking at the safety of drinking chlorous acid. All of Jim Humbles claims of how safe it is to consume chlorine dioxide have little to do with chlorous acid.

Chlorous acid is used in food processing. The chlorine dioxide produced is considered a waste product and efforts are made to eliminate it from the chlorous acid. The wonderful antimicrobial properties of chlorous acid are due to its high ORP. It has an ORP that is much higher than that of chlorine dioxide in water, and just a little higher than the ORP of chlorine dioxide in air. The ORP of chlorous acid is 1.58 volts. In comparison, chlorine bleach is 1.36 volts and ozone is 2.07 volts. As mentioned earlier, chlorine dioxide in water has an ORP of 0.95 volts.

The argument that chlorine dioxide won't harm body cells because of its low ORP may be valid for the Lubbers study where they used chlorine dioxide in water, but it does not hold true for MMS because MMS involves chlorous acid. Remember that oxidizers work by having a concentration high enough and a contact time long enough to kill.

Now when we look at the Lubbers study we find that a much lower concentration was used, and chlorine dioxide in water has a much lower ORP than the chlorous acid involved with in the MMS protocol.

By now you should be asking how anyone lives after ingesting MMS.

That brings us back to the wonders of chemistry. Chlorous acid is PH sensitive. When it hits the stomach, it wipes out the flora in the stomach, and it appears to also dig into some of the stomach lining. However, as it passes further down the GI tract, its PH is neutralized and the chlorous acid goes back to sodium chlorite. Diarrhea occurs when the dose has increased to a point where the colon can't neutralize the PH of it, and it spasms to eliminate it from the body.

Throughout all of this, chlorite is absorbed into the blood stream and it flows to all the organs in the body.

While reading this, keep in mind my medical qualifications... I have none. This speculation is complied from discussions I have had with medical professionals as I have tried to figure out what is going on with these chemicals.

MMS is actually about chlorous acid and chlorite, but there is a component of chlorine dioxide that is also involved. There are conditions where chlorite can pick up an electron and transform back to chlorine dioxide. It is possible that this can happen inside the body, if I am to believe what I have been told, so MMS may also involve chlorine dioxide.

This is where things get complex. At least for me. The body has different PH values for different areas of the body. Since chlorous acid is PH sensitive, it is possible that if it encounters an acid PH, it could release a small amount of chlorine dioxide.

Looking at malaria, the best that I have been able to come up with is that the chlorous acid or chlorite kills off the infected red blood cells. This gives the person a sense of relief, and Jim Humble calls them cured. To me this sounds a lot like dilute chemotherapy. It is possible that someone with simple malaria could recover, but if the malaria is complex things are much different.

As far as chlorous acid curing other ailments, the first question that needs to be ask is what is being oxidized. If the ailment cause is not sensitive to oxidation, MMS will not work. If it does work, it is the placebo effect.

Just for a moment, let's speculate that Jim Humble in spite of his lack of knowledge of chemistry and the human body, actually does see some improvement in people he gives MMS to. Let's put the safety aspects of these chemicals on the back burner for just a moment.

When I tried MMS, I didn't follow the MMS protocol, but I did try it for a short period of time. I found that I seemed to have an increase of energy a few days into trying it. Then things deteriorated and I eventually came down with the flu. I couldn't understand how it was possible to catch the flu when I was "full" of chlorine dioxide. I don't catch the flu, so this was a warning to me that my immune system was being weakened.

I did some research and found that a lot of others had similar experiences. I decided that it was time to rebuild my body and I stopped taking MMS and switched to balancing my body with antioxidants and a balanced diet.

In light of this, it is possible that Jim Humble actually sees some improvement in the people he gives MMS to. He calls that a cure, but in spite of that there may be a place for dilute chemo on the road to health.

Don't get me wrong. The MMS protocol is flawed, and MMS is an industrial strength chemical that is dangerous to handle. Sodium chlorite is not a cure all for everything, but there are some times when it works very well.

OK, back to reality. Safety is a concern and we can't ignore that.

I use a 5% sodium chlorite solution, and have had the opportunity to explore the topical use of chlorous acid and chlorine dioxide with a number of people and animals.

Sometimes the results are spectacular, other times the efforts don't help at all.

For example, when encountered with an infected wound on the toe of a person with diabetes, chlorine dioxide can eliminate the infection and chlorous acid can keep further infection at bay, but these chemicals can't do anything to restore circulation that is needed to heal the wound.

This brings us to the point of realizing that MMS is all about killing. The body needs to kill off infection and pathogens, but there has to be a balance and after the killing you need to rebuild the body. It is frustrating that Jim Humble only focuses on killing, and ignores the rebuilding of the body.

A question came up about the selective properties of chlorine dioxide.

First of all keep in mind that at the correct concentration chlorine dioxide is a bleaching agent. Below that concentration it is not bleach.

In the 1940's it was observed that chlorine dioxide attacks lignin in pulp while leaving the cellulose untouched. In addition, when comparing this to chlorine, it was observed that chlorine dioxide did not attach chlorine to the lignin particles in the process. This made chlorine dioxide "selective."

In water treatment chlorine dioxide doesn't attach chlorine to all the organic material in the water, so it is also "selective" in this application.

Chlorine dioxide targets thiols, phenols, sulfur bonds, secondary amines, magnesium, iron, and a whole lot of other things. The difficulty in thinking about using chlorine dioxide is that the body needs these items in order to live. Since it targets specific things, that makes it selective.

Chlorine dioxide is a biocide. Biocide means that it kills living things. It doesn't know good flora from bad flora, it just oxidizes everything it can when it comes into contact with it.

If it doesn't kill something, it simply means that the concentration wasn't high enough, or the contact time wasn't long enough.

The advantage of chlorine dioxide is that since it doesn't chlorinate, lower concentrations can be used. This minimizes the disinfection by products. The selective properties of chlorine dioxide have nothing to do with indentifying good bacteria from bad bacteria, or aerobic bacteria from anerobic bacteria.

Chlorine dioxide is effective over a wide range of PH and temperature and it is effective in killing a wide range of pathogens. I don't know if it works inside the body, but there is a lot that it can do outside the body to promote health.

If you want to try this internally, be sure to have a medical professional monitor you for signs of oxidative stress.

That's about it. I hope this helps you understand these chemicals and if you decide to use them to find a way to use them safely.